The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Renewable Revolution > Comments

The Renewable Revolution : Comments

By Sophie Love, published 20/11/2012

Global citizens are recognising that reliance on fossil fuels is destructive.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
The trouble is that there are now so many of us with pressing demands that unreliable and expensive sources of energy cannot meet our needs. It is impossible to run an aluminium smelter 24/7/365 with energy costing less than 5c per kwh if it has to come from wind and solar. Instead of adapting to expensive energy we simply get the Indians and Chinese to do the dirty deeds for us.

For wind and solar to do more of the heavy lifting will require massive overbuilding and/or energy storage. That require much higher energy prices than the weak carbon tax achieves. The energy investment per person will have to increase several fold. To even have a shot at it means diverting decades of present consumption into energy investment and perhaps reducing population. Since I see few signs of this we'll ride the fossil fuel train to the end of the line.
Posted by Taswegian, Tuesday, 20 November 2012 7:55:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Go the Lancashire Luddites!

< Many of these rioters and wreckers were either executed or transported to penal colonies in America or Australia. >

So modern Australia is founded on a tradition of Luddism!

But we totally lost it along the way. We DESPERATELY need to get back closer to the basics.

We need to work towards a balance between supply and demand, for energy and all resources. We need to embrace solar and other renewables and get the bejeezus off of our addiction to oil!

We’ve got to sort out which types of growth are good for us and which are bad and embrace the good and eliminate the bad…. instead of treating all growth as good!

We've got to develop a much more realistic, logistic and Luddistic approach!

In short, we DESPERATELY need a powerful wave of Neoluddism to sweep over us!
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 20 November 2012 8:18:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reminds me of the song in My Fair Lady 'Oh wooden it be luvverly ... Lots of chocolate for me to eat etc'. Blimey, what a load of codswallop. This abundant Earth is blessed with unimaginable quantities of minerals and energy. The term 'fossil fuels' denies that the major source of our coal, oil and gas comes from deep within the Earth as methane - totally independent of fossilised dead dinosaurs of which there are certainly limited resources (refer Thomas Gold, The deep hot biosphere). Coal, oil and gas remain the fuels which should be more correctly called 'carbon fuels' supplying cheap and abundant energy until well into the future when our children will find access to even better and cheaper fuels to supply their food, shelter and transport needs. A trace, life-essential gas called carbon dioxide has been demonised to the extent a tax has been imposed on it. Like the stupid window tax, this will one day be exposed as the fraud it is. Luddites who live today owe their very lives to the Industrial Revolution which allowed longevity into the equation. During this period the birthrate remained relatively constant but people lived longer because many of the causes of premature death were overcome. Famine was eliminated in the Industrialised world. Luddites should wake up. Their wonderful solar panels and windmills (manufactured and transported courtesy of cheap, reliable, coal-fired base-load power) will be providing landfill within the next decade or so unless ways can be found to economically recycle these government subsidised toys.
Posted by JockMcPublisher, Tuesday, 20 November 2012 9:30:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sophie Love,

“Global citizens are recognising that reliance on fossil fuels is destructive.”

Why don’t people like you recognise that renewable energy is even more destructive?

For example:

Renewables require an order of magnitude more materials, per TWh of electricity supplied, than nuclear; that means renewables require more mining, processing, manufacturing, fabrication, construction, decommissioning and disposal, and transport between all stages, than with nuclear.

Australia’s federal government has committed us to waste about $25-30 billion on subsidies for renewable energy by 2020. That is for a negligible amount of energy. It is an enormous waste of money. It’s massive waste - similar scale as the NBN.

If the NEM's electricity was to be generated by a mix of solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, wind, hydro and either biomass or natural gas as the backup the CO2 abatement cost would be about $300/tonne CO2 avoided:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/ (Figure 6). That’s about thirty times the current EU carbon price and thirteen times the Australian carbon tax.

The world’s largest and most recent solar thermal plant, Ivanpah, http://www.ecc-conference.org/past-conferences/2012/BrightSource_ECC_Presentation_combined.pdf will cost about $19/W of average power delivered.

Nameplate capacity = 370 MW.

1,000,000 MWh/year. This means average power output is 114 MW (about 1/10th of a new nuclear plant).

Capacity factor is 31%.

Cost = US $2.2 billion = $19/Watt average electricity delivered.

This is 3x the cost of some recent nuclear powerplant builds that most environmentalists have accused of being prohibitively expensive.

The heliostats used in the project weigh in at 30,000 tonnes. That's 262 tons of heliostats per MW electric average. That's just for the heliostats, not even the foundations, not to mention the tower and power block.

The powerplant area that had to be bulldozed over is 20x larger than a nuclear reactor of equivalent average (real) capacity (twin unit AP1000).

Lastly, nuclear is safer than any other electricity generation technology, including wind and solar:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 20 November 2012 9:48:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jock,

Go industrialisation - like the clappers, if you will : )

Of course, "moderation", doesn't get a look in - it's all about growth.

Here's a country that's been going gangbusters in the growth department:

http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/

So China's environmental controls and work practices are based on the early industrial model, but hey, they supply the majority of the West's geegaws so it must be worth it.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 20 November 2012 9:57:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The most important things of all are for us to get a handle on the scale of our activities, to strive to achieve a balance between demand and supply and to make sure that the demand sits comfortably within the sustainable supply capability with a big margin to spare. This is the essence of sustainable societies and a sustainable planet.

You’d think it would get top priority, however it is all too often left out entirely.

Most people who espouse recycling, renewable energy, more efficient food production and technological advances of all sorts, don’t even think about this. All they seem to think about is increasing the supply!

For as long as they do this, they are actually helping to WORSEN the problem, because they are essentially pandering to the ever-increasing demand for everything!

Global population stabilisation and then gentle reduction is of paramount importance. In fact, it is as important as everything on the supply side of the equation put together.

This makes it far and away humanity’s most important issue.

And yet it probably doesn’t get any more than about 1% as much attention as it should.

PS. Of course my first post was TIC. We don’t need Luddites. We need SUSTAINABITIYISTS!
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 20 November 2012 9:58:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The invention and then improvement of the steam engine, and the subsequent increase in demand for coal changed all that.”

Sure did. As did every time man harnessed fuels with greater energy density. So, why would anyone – other thon those who long for a return to simple times – advocate returning to low energy density?

• Nuclear fuel is 20,000 to 2 million times more energy dense than coal. This offers huge potential advantages.

• Virtually unlimited energy supply for the world

• Easy to store and requires small area and volume to store years of a whole country’s energy needs – this provides much greater energy security than with fossil fuels

• 20,000 to 2 million times less mass to be shipped.

• Reduced fatalities per TWh of electricity provided

• Provides a reliable power supply. Can be load following if necessary.

• Each time man has moved to higher energy density fuels in the past, it has made possible huge improvements in human wellbeing. This potential is probably the greatest advantage of nuclear power.
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 20 November 2012 10:13:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Without trying to be offensive this is absolute mindless crap.

Obviously the author has never thought her ideas through. Two hundred years ago life was a nightmarish existence with no anti-biotics, no painkillers where unemployment, poverty, illness and painful death was the norm. Mildly deviant behaviour could result in life term prison sentences. Animals were for eating or the purposes of replacing manual labour only.

People went to bed at sunset because there was no electric lighting. They used wood burning stoves to cook and suffered due to lack of smoke extraction. Children were often smaller, less healthy, uneducated and abused without protection. Food shortages were commonplace and corporal punishment for children was the norm. Shoes were a luxury item.

The only reason the author can live her idyllic existence is due to the advent of technology and industrialisation which created the wealth to fund massive medical and scientific advances from which she so obviously benefits today.

Quote 1: "The Industrial Revolution was driven by a monied few excited by the linings of their own pockets, while the Renewable Revolution is being stymied by the same monied minority scared of what the future holds if we cease to be reliant on their coal and oil."

Absolute RUBBISH. Its scary that people actually believe this. Perhaps the billions of dollars backing the Green revolution has escaped her notice.

Quote 2: "Communities were self-sustaining and interlaced". Not sure what she means by interlaced and I bet she isn't either. Self-sustaining?? really no-one traded??. Guess Lancashire was growing their own bananas back then. The fact that communities were isolated meant they were LESS able to sustain themselves.

An 19th Century life is what the great Green monster wants for us all. Slaving away all day for a centralised Global government who knows whats best for us. The fact that many can fall for the false and dangerous romantic belief that 'it was better in the old days' and that solar panels and windmills are the answer shows that Green funded lunacy is attempting to dominate the political agenda and succeeding.
Posted by Atman, Tuesday, 20 November 2012 11:50:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Romanticized, emotive, simplistic drivel!?
Yes, would that we could return to a simpler life?
So, let's see what that would entail?
Every family, [2+2,] would require at least 5 acres of hand hoed arable land, to supply enough food for them.
A few pigs and chickens, would help to keep the land tilled, fertilized and free of pests?
And assist with waste recycling, supply some vital protein, feathers for beds and pillows; and pigskin for essential leather products?
Then there'd be a minimum of around forty acres, for a permanent wood-lot, and twice that if blacksmithing or potting, were included?
Increased by 50% as family's age and extend.
Several goats, would keep the wood-lot weed free and supply milk.
A couple of horses, needed to keep the land tilled, haul logs, dead animals, and any surplus stock to market, or exchanged for artisan crafted essential goods, nails, needles, picks, axes, hoes, saws, chisels, hammers and so on.
Hand-crafted steel, would likely be worth more than gold; and see service through several generations.
Each horse would need at least eight acres of self sustaining, sustenance graze, and eighty acres of land set aside for rotational grain and legume production.
And five plus acres, would need to be set aside for wetland water supply, storage and cleaning!
Yabbies and ducks would help with that and extend the food variety/availability!
Every man would need to be able to build a barn or a log cabin!
There's not enough space, to enumerate the dawn to dark duties, that would accrue to the Wife and Mother.
None could any manage on less, than two hundred acres?
You'd only need multiply that, by around two billion families, to understand, we simply don't have enough arable land, to return to a lifestyle, that is par for the course, in drought and famine ravaged Ethiopia!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 20 November 2012 12:10:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But that's OK, Rhosty, because under those conditions about 70% of the population would already have dropped off the perch due to chronic diseases, infant mortality, violent invasions and seizure of scarce resources, hypothermia, hyperthermia, parasites and wild beasts, and within a generation or two we would be back to a sustainable population of a billion or so, an infant morality rate of 50% and an average lifespan of about forty-five. See? No problems!
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 20 November 2012 12:32:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sophie Love - where did you get the idea that alternative energy is being blocked by faceless energy industry interests? You did know that there were substantial alternate energy targets and a carbon tax, or did that slip your mind?

Without that support and various state programs, alternate energy would be largely ignored as both ineffective and uneconomic. As the targets stand, and as I have pointed out on this forum "Wind power running out of puff" http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14297 it is difficult to see how those targets can be met, but that problem has nothing to do with energy company interests.

One major barrier is the strict planning guidelines for wind farms, but those were brought in as a result of complaints over noise. They have nothing to do with the energy industry, which could not care less about renewables and have not said a word about them one way or another. Time to adjust your world view..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 20 November 2012 12:39:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Taswegian
You and ot hers might be interested in the following story from villangs in the state of New York.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175618/tomgram%3A_ellen_cantarow%2C_%22little_revolution%2C%22_big_fracking_consequences/?utm_source=TomDispatch&utm_campaign=f262c90b90-TD_Cantarow11_18_2012&utm_medium=email#more
Posted by halduell, Tuesday, 20 November 2012 4:54:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Taswegian
Apologies for the first post - it escaped me before I edited it.
You and others might be interested in the following story from small villages in the state of New York.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175618/tomgram%3A_ellen_cantarow%2C_%22little_revolution%2C%22_big_fracking_consequences/?utm_source=TomDispatch&utm_campaign=f262c90b90-TD_Cantarow11_18_2012&utm_medium=email#more
Posted by halduell, Tuesday, 20 November 2012 4:54:26 PM
Posted by halduell, Tuesday, 20 November 2012 4:57:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another article by a hypocrite who self-indulgently despises the means by which she can live her life.

Wind and solar DO NOT WORK; end of story.

Modern society which this author enjoys but can contradictorily dismiss depends on cheap, reliable energy.

Fossils have provided this and will continue to do because of new technology which is making the energy extraction much more efficient and free of REAL pollutants, not just CO2 [see Ultra Supercritical coal technology].

The same with nuclear, absolutely brilliant with the potential of Thorium unlimited.

All this is opposed by green foolishness and self-indulgence, as personified by this witless article.

All that can be said is that if this author and her ilk think nature is so wonderful then they should discard their possessions and lifestyles and live in a cave and leave the rest of us alone.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 20 November 2012 7:22:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Wind and solar DO NOT WORK; end of story."

Sorry Cohenite, but they do!

Large house, 280sqm of living space, normal appliances, fridges, freezer, and lights, wifey's sewing machine, computer (on which I am typing), lights, etc etc, and not connected to the grid.

It is all possible if you have the correct mindset, and yes I acknowledge that the solar panels and wind generator that I use were built using fossil fuels.

I have not received 1c in government assistance to drive my energy needs, I am currently working on an energy device, 4M X 4M (glass house) that produces heat, then transfers this to a fulcrum device and then generates free electricity, to (yes again fossil fuel derived car batteries) turn a number of old car alternators that charge the good old car batteries.

My small scale (1Kw) model works and I hope to generate about 4Kw during daylight hours (mid latitude WA) that will allow me to draw down the 4Kw during the dark hours. Just an experiment to date, but looking good!

All of this is scalable but probably not 100% realistic in an urban environment.

I will let you know how things work out. Also looking at heat transfer from water buried in pipes below 1m to generate heat and attach to the same above device, could be interesting.

As I always say, keep the mind open and don't discount the absurd.

Geoff
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Tuesday, 20 November 2012 10:45:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geoff for an odd ball, [& I approve of odd balls], particularly one who likes playing games with stuff like alternate energy it can work. Just one question, how long have you been doing it?

I had 10 years living off the grid, on my yacht. I used the other approach. 12V lights, & many things run by reduced voltage, like my electronic organ radios etc. Then my cooking & refrigeration was by gas.

I tried using wind, a dead loss, & solar, better, but still a problem. I even played with a towed impeller driving an alternator, but found it not only lacking, but useless at anchor.

Yes it was the trusty Honda generator which was least obtrusive into both life & pocket which did most of the work. Diesels, so good on a farm, were just too noisy.

My brother in law, an engineer, also lived off grid for about 8 years. When asked the best thing about his new home on the grid it was a "real phone", not his solar powered satellite outfit, closely followed by no battery banks to have to pay for, & maintain.

So mate, for many the best thing about alternate energy is that it's so good when you stop. As for a means of supplying power to the great unwashed, forget it. They can't afford it, & can't be bothered with it.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 21 November 2012 12:09:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cohenite, please do not accuse me of being a hypocrite. I have lived off the grid, on solar only for over 5 years. We produce our own power, harvest our own water, grow most of our own food and slaughter a steer and lamb a year for the carnivores. We run several businesses from here, have no dramas with power, and are living proof that renewables DO work. Australia is far, far behind the civilized European world who realise that we HAVE to change our reliance on fossil fuels. They have more wind and that works for them, we have more sun - so use it, harvest it, transmute it into the power we need. Solar panels are now so cheap we don't need subsidies, nor does the industry want them but do you know how much we pay the coal companies in subsidies each year? BILLIONS that would be better spent creating a new, sustainable, viable, alternative energy industry.
Posted by SophieLove, Wednesday, 21 November 2012 6:12:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Sophie Love

Have you checked your assertions about coal/oil subsidies etc ? Did you know that Obama gave 90 Billion to renewables and only 2 Billion to Oil companies last year?

Sounds like you are a businesswoman making a healthy profit from numerous businesses yet you despise others wish to make a profit.

Nowhere do alternative energies provide baseload power and I'd like to know how many 10s of thousands it cost you to set this up. I'd also like you to say whether you are on the grid or not.

You are a living example of how the great green dream is simply another money making enterprise and such articles are ultimately about promoting a new form of business.
Posted by Atman, Wednesday, 21 November 2012 8:49:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@SOphie Love

I note from a response to another post you are off the grid, so that question is answered.
Posted by Atman, Wednesday, 21 November 2012 8:53:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A couple of people, Geoff, Hasbeen and the author have provided their own personal experience about how "renewables" work.

Only Hasbeen is honest because he notes the obvious: for certain people who are motivated and have the capacity to adjust their lifestyles renewable can provide power for that idiosyncratic lifestyle choice.

Hasbeen says this:

"As for a means of supplying power to the great unwashed, forget it. They can't afford it, & can't be bothered with it."

That's a bit condescending, "great unwashed". In actual fact this great society and other Western nations have large infrastructure requirements which requires large amounts of reliable and cheap power.

Wind and solar CANNOT supply power for that infrastructure; it can't be scaled up, as Geoff suggests, because at whatever scale the intermittancy remains, as does the great cost.

Anecdotal evidence of motivated and non-conformist individuals cannot be extrapolated from to the vast majority; not because the vast majority are not interested in the subject but because the great majority choose to remain within and support the social structure and not 'opt out' with patronising fanfare and the implication that if I can do it then everyone can too.

Frankly this is expedient non-conformity; people disdain or nominally reject the rest of society but still depend on it at emergency times; such as when they get sick and require hospital or other medical infrastructure; or when they require a police force or defence force etc.

So Ms Love, I'n afraid you are you are a hypocrite and you are wrong about wind and solar; make your choice by all means but don't inflict it on the rest of us under the guise of the lie of AGW
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 21 November 2012 8:57:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well done, Sophie (and Geoff).

It seems the likes of cohenite and Atman feel that it's desirable to aim a modicum of contempt in the direction of anyone who chooses not to be led by the nose by the industrial status quo.

They'd much rather hear that you bought your meat and vegies at Coles, along with your bottled water - and how rude of you to actually turn a profit from your ingenuity and hard work!

Cheers : )
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 21 November 2012 9:08:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Taswegian
Look, please don't link green propaganda. Just think what you would have said had we linked the anti-climate change equivalent. I wasted time looking at that post.

Geoff of Perth - no, renewables don't work, and that point has been made several times to you and you have not been able to answer. They are quite useless, unless of course, if Sophie Love's posts are to be believed, you can live on a plot of land and don't mind what you spend on equipment to harness wind and solar and are able to set it up with backup battery power so that you don't get interruptions. the rest of us, however, have to live in the real world.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 21 November 2012 9:37:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hear hear, Poirot. Sophie and Geoff need to be commended for exploring alternative energy sources.

.

But it is strongly evident from the comments on this thread that the most important point of all is just being missed entirely.

This, as I mentioned in my first post, is the scale of human energy consumption and the imperative of reaching a balance between consumption and ongoing supply capability.

I really do find it staggering that this seems to sit outside of most peoples’ headspace and wouldn’t even enter discussions like this if I didn’t mention it.

All the discussion about fossil fuels versus solar, wind, nuclear, etc sits on one side of the discussion. Or at least; on one side of the discussion that we should be having here.

The other side which is as important as all these things put together, is how we deal with population growth and with increasing per-capita energy usage, especially in India and China.

In Australia, it makes ZERO sense for our government to be trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with the carbon tax while at the same time bringing a very rapid rate of energy consumers and CO2 emitters into this country!

This couldn’t be more contradictory. And yet scant few people seem concerned.

Population growth / immigration in Australia has got everything to do with our energy strategy. Likewise around the world.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 21 November 2012 10:23:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig,

Many of India's farmers are again resuming more earth-friendly methods of farming after experiencing the degradation of the Green Revolution. They are well placed to explore the myriad methods available to rehabilitate their land.

What amazes me is the mindset of those who hurl abuse at anyone who realises that unsustainable agriculture is just that - "unsustainable"....and the blind following of the industrial/petrochemical control of developed societies. I was gobsmacked when I read of the varieties of pears and apples once available to people in Europe. Those varieties filled thirteen volumes - and (anyone correct me if I'm wrong) there are only five "sanctioned" brands of apples now in France. F1 Hybrid seeds are controlled by the multi-nationals in concert with governments. A scientist was "fined for saving a variety of potato!

Talk about sheep!
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 21 November 2012 10:34:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a joy you are poirot; I can imagine you in your little inner city garden mourning the demise of pear varieties.

But be assured, like the author you can grow what you want; seed banks have preserved the 3000 varieties of pear.

What are grown commercially are the most productive, highest yielding varieties which are necessary to feed the masses who lack the will and moral fiber of people like you and the author to live independently of the social structure.

I used to know some people who advocated living independently of society; they were survivalists, rednecks in your parlance.

I guess that makes you and the author greennecks.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 21 November 2012 11:34:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a myopic view you have of "society", cohenite....what you really mean is "Western society".

Most of the world's people grow and tend their food employing cooperative methods and sharing their knowledge and their seeds (or at least they did) - which is why the modern penchant for multi-nationals to usurp that autonomy is such an abomination - see India's experience.

I love the way you admonish any article author or poster who holds opposing views to your own by calling them names or otherwise impugning them in some manner - as in:

"Another article by a hypocrite who self-indulgently despises the means by which she can live her life."

...what's all that about - why the insulting rhetoric?
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 21 November 2012 12:21:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"why the insulting rhetoric?"

Because I think she is a hypocrite.

Do you really think everyone can live like her?

Do you have a job Poirot? In what way would your life change if society did not provide basic infrastructure and you had to be self-sufficient?

I think you are hopelessly romantic about the idea of a green/natural lifestyle; I have some experience of a natural lifestyle and I think people who think a natural lifestyle is lovely should experience a dose of malaria.

Anyway you are not going to change your view until possibly the lights go out; and if this corrupt government goes full term that may happen; good luck then with your vision of a cooperative utopia.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 21 November 2012 3:22:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

For someone who consistently extols the virtues of modern industrial society you appear to display much angst and ill temper.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-25/mental-health-teams-to-target-teen-suicide/4332482
(symptomatic of a growth obsessed industrialised society)

You're certainly a poor advertisement for the things you espouse.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 21 November 2012 4:11:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cohenite, I take the time and trouble to present passionate rhetoric (backed by research) in order to provoke intelligent debate which opens minds, shares information and inspires re-thinking from all camps in the subject under question. I too learn from the comments to my articles both at OLO and ABC's The Drum but never before have I felt compelled to comment myself. I respectfully request that you cease and desist from calling me things that I am not. This is slanderous behaviour and totally unnecessary. Why do you feel you have to abuse me?

Yes, I have chosen to opt out because I believe self reliance is crucial, and that every consumer who makes a choice not to subject themselves to the greed is good, irrational consumerism and nanny state of modern life. People become too dependent on having everything handed to them on a plate (power, water, cheap food etc) and then can't cope in a crisis if all taken away. We have become too weak and lily livered, too idle and childishly, petulantly, demanding.

If you would take the time to conduct some research, you will find that solar is providing baseload power for much of Barcelona, Italy, Arizona and California. Geothermal in Alaska. Wind in England, Scotland, Wales, Holland etc.

It works whether for individuals who don't want to be beholden to power companies all their lives, or who believe in alternatives, and have an open enough mind to try them, or for power generators embracing new technology rather than keep raping the earth.

You make assumptions about me that are not true, Cohenite (Modern society which this author enjoys but can contradictorily dismiss) - how do you know how I live my life or whether I enjoy, profit from, or parasitically consume from modern society?

If you only like your own worldview, cohenite, don't read anyone else's . . .or change your nickname to CURMUDGEON!!
Posted by SophieLove, Wednesday, 21 November 2012 10:11:15 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-25/mental-health-teams-to-target-teen-suicide/4332482
(symptomatic of a growth obsessed industrialised society)<<

I think teen suicide has been around a bit longer than industrialized society Poirot. I seem to recall from my high school English lessons that there's a bit of it at the end of Romeo and Juliet.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Wednesday, 21 November 2012 10:20:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atman
In 2010-2011 the Australian Taxpayers subsidised Fossil Fuels to the tune of $12.73 billion, Renewables received $1.7 billion.
Lets talk about whats happening in Australia, not whats happening in the US.
A report by Chris Reidy in 2007 suggests that subsidies actually create profits for large coal fired power generators.
Posted by ARECA, Wednesday, 21 November 2012 11:16:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Renewables do work
I joined the Renewable Industry over 10years ago when I wanted to put solar on a property I had just bought and didn't want to pay the ridiculous amount of money to install Grid Power.

Over the years I have seen an incredible amount of change in the solar industry, back then systems were expensive and yes the government incentives that were provided helped this fledgling industry to become what it is today.
A lot of people complain about the amount of money the Governments are pouring into renewables and are asking why they should be still getting these incentives. I am happy that the industry is very close to the point where it can stand on its own 2 feet without any Government assistance, a far cry from the coal industry who started getting subsidies over 100 years ago and is still getting them (either that industry is and never has been sustainable or there are a few getting extremely rich off the Government handouts)

You here people talking about Baseload power and that renewables can not supply this, I beg to differ. Can they supply baselaod solar in the capacity needed to replace a coal fired power station with a single baseload solar power station, not yet, but what we are seeing and I installed my fist one over 12 months ago is Household baseload solar power. Battery systems being installed in individual houses utilising the solar power during the day to run the house and charge the batteries and using the stored battery power during the evening and night time. If the Fossil Fuel industry has been scared by the uptake of Grid Connected Solar power, they should be really scared of Household Baseload Solar power being installed.
Posted by ARECA, Wednesday, 21 November 2012 11:17:15 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder about this loose talk about "subsidies" for the fossil fuel industry. There are compelling counterarguments. For example:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/43376.html
Posted by Herbert Stencil, Thursday, 22 November 2012 4:39:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ARECA

I'd like to know where you get you information from? The Carbon Tax is the greatest alternative energy revenue stream ever created. Approx 5 billion per year) and consumers have no choice but pay it- and that's just the start.
Posted by Atman, Friday, 23 November 2012 1:07:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"In 2010-2011 the Australian Taxpayers subsidised Fossil Fuels to the tune of $12.73 billion, Renewables received $1.7 billion."

That's a lie; the myth of fossil fuel subsidies is dealt with here:

http://rwdb.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/australian-conservation-foundations.html

Basically the so-called subsidies to fossils are the usual business tax deductions given to all businesses. The issues of externalities such as increased health risks from fossils is something which does need looking at but the biggest alleged externality, AGW, is also a lie.

Subsidies to renewables are beyond the pale and consist of direct financial support from the government through the CEFC and ARENA which will give renewables over $13billion by 2015.

Then there is the CO2 tax which goes hand in hand with renewables and has doubled electricity prices for a total cost to the community of many more $billions.

But the worse thing is, despite ARECA's testimonial, is that green energy DOES NOT WORK for base load; in Australia the sources of electricity are Black Coal 52%, Brown Coal 23%. Natural Gas 15% for a total CO2 emitting sources of 90%. Hydro is 5%, Wind is 2% and Other is 3% made up mostly of Bagasse burning power plants at sugar refineries, and Solar comes into this other area, but is less than one tenth of one percent.

That's after years of developement and money; in addition major solar plants like Chinchilla and Moree, despite huge government support are not proceeding.

What ARECA is describing is a system where certain individuals, essentially survivalists, go off grid using equipment from the real world and then claim the rest of us can do the same; at best this is hypocrisy, otherwise dangerous arrogance.
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 23 November 2012 4:38:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy